[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Sue Gardner wrote:
> Hi Derk-Jan,
>
> Thank you for starting this thread.
>
> There is obviously a range of options -- let's say, on a 10-point
> scale, ranging from 0 (do nothing but enforce existing policy) to 10
> (completely purge everything that's potentially objectionable to
> anyone, anywhere).  Somewhere on that continuum are possibilities like
> i) we tag pages so that external entities can filter, ii) we point
> parents towards content filtering systems they can use, but make no
> changes ourselves, iii) we implement our own filtering system so that
> people can choose to hide objectionable content if they want, or iv)
> we implement our own filtering system, with a default to a "safe" or
> "moderate" view and the option for people to change their own
> settings.  Those are just a few: there are lots of options.  (e.g.,
> Google Images and Flickr I believe do different versions of option iv.
>  I'm not saying that means we should do the same; it does not
> necessarily mean that.)
>
> I would love to see a table of various options, with pros and cons
> including feedback from folks like EFF.  If anyone feels like starting
> such a thing, I would be really grateful :-)
>
>   
Hi Sue,

Is it okay if I first explain why none of the examples
you mention are a good fit for us; and then pull a
rabbit out of my hat, and explain how one of them
can be salvaged and made into an excellent system?

Rating by level is fixed, and it will never be culturally
sensitive. And on wikipedia no matter how it is rigged
people who edit will just get frustrated for both the
right and the wrong reasons.

Using words like "safe" etc, will certainly offend
cultures, which are very very strict, for instance
in terms how much flesh can be seen of women.

Pointing parents to systems of filtering, that is
half a solution, and the problem would be we
would have to keep vetting what the filtering
systems are basing their filtering, so our site
doesn't look ridiculous in some form or another,
either accidentally failing and offending the
viewer (ask me sometime, I have tales to tell),
or going to the other extreme, and leaving the
viewer without a perfectly nice result.

The last problem, but certainly not the least one.
All of these are a *hard* *sell*. They are a hard
sell to the wikimedian community. They are also
a hard sell to a huge sector of our readers, and
those who love us, even enough to give us small
donations. Our community must matter to us,
our readers must matter to us, those who love
us should matter to us, and well, those who
give us small donations -- I am not in a place
to tell how much they matter to us.

So now we come to the rabbit time!!!

(DRUM-ROLL PLEASE!)

If it is a hard sell, find a way to soften it, without
forcing the issue. How? First, be very canny about
how the tags are named. Tits vs. Breasts, Butt vs.
Rear-end, Baretits vs. Topless and so forth. Second
do *not* limit the tags to such content tags which
are useful for _avoiding_ content, but add in also
positive tags (I know, for some all those above are
positive tags ;-) puppies, kittens, funny, horsies,
etc.

I am sure someone can think of even better and
smoother tagnames. But teh advantages of this
approach are that it doesn't *feel* like censorship,
but more like a value added service. I won't
talk about how the system of selecting which stuff
to see should be constructed, but I am sure
someone has ideas. I do think though that the
system should be reversible, that is essential to
sell it not as censorship, so that those who only
want to see naughty bits can do so, or for that
matter somebody can see only cute animals.

There is one additional benefit in terms of our
community too. It is much more fun to add those
kinds of tags, and much less drudge-work.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen